North of the Citgo Approach = Flyover (Pentagon)

Craig Ranke's picture

Greetings wtcdemoliton members!

Thanks for all the support you have offered CIT in the past.

I noticed how a few of you are reticent to accept the fact that a north of the gas station approach proves a flyover so I figured I'd drop by to discuss this with you directly.

It is a scientific fact agreed upon by all supporters AND detractors of CIT who have published anything on this issue that the plane on the north side approach is irreconcilable with all physical damage.

Please use this important detailed FAQ page on our site as your main reference to explain to people exactly WHY the plane can not hit from the north side:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.htm...

This is why we have been so "strident" in this regard ever since we first obtained the witness accounts from the Citgo station and released The PentaCon in early 2007.

There simply is no other logical alternative without introducing exotic weaponry to somehow "disappear" the plane.

As most of you are likely aware, we have continued to validate the north side approach with several more witnesses and have received ultimate confirmation of the plane flying away from Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr as well as a firsthand account from Arlington Cemetery employee Erik Dihle that the first thing people reported immediately after the explosion was that "a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going".

To doubt that Roosevelt Roberts and the statement by Erik Dihle is the ultimate confirmation of a flyover despite the overwhelming evidence for a north side approach would be similar to doubting verified corroboration from witnesses who saw bombs being planted in the WTC7 despite all the evidence we have for controlled demo. (even worse since it's basically impossible to mistake a big plane flying away just above the light poles and Roosevelt is on record stating this in 2001 only weeks after the event)

But we do not need Roosevelt Roberts and Erik Dihle to prove a flyover just like we do not need witnesses to bombs being planted at the WTC to prove controlled demo.

Despite what people like Jon Gold say, we should NOT shy away from the FACT that physics and science 100% PROVE controlled demo of the WTC.

The situation is just as definitive regarding the implications of the undeniable evidence for a north side approach.

If anyone here doubts this would you please explain why?

Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
gretavo's picture

Welcome Craig!

First let me say that yours and Aldo's body of work on this issue is impressive and important for everyone to consider with an open mind. I don't disagree that a north flight path, assuming the reliability and honesty of the eyewitnesses, necessarily means a flyover--I see no reason to doubt that conclusion given those facts. But I also don't think that this angle of inquiry precludes other approaches to the problems with the OCT re: the Pentagon. Namely the fact that no one has ever provided conclusive evidence that AA77 flew into the Pentagon--regardless of what flew *over* it. More later...

Craig Ranke's picture

Thanks Gretavo!

You said: But I also don't think that this angle of inquiry precludes other approaches to the problems with the OCT re: the Pentagon. Namely the fact that no one has ever provided conclusive evidence that AA77 flew into the Pentagon

Interesting position although I am not quite sure what you mean or why you would mention it in this context.

Do you feel that CIT actually "precludes" the fact that there is no proof of a 757 impact?

If so I would have to disagree as we make this quite clear in in the first chapter of National Security Alert where we outline a "prima facie case for deception".

gretavo's picture

no, not at all

I don't think that's what you guys are saying--I accept that you agree with me that there is no such proof. And I appreciate the efforts to find witnesses and get them on the record--that is very valuable work. My sole point is that in my view, the best approach to the question of what happened at the Pentagon is first and foremost to make the general public aware that the official account has never been supported by solid evidence. The fact that in addition to that glaring omission of evidence we have reasons, such as the lack of debris and the evidence indicative of a flyover, to suspect a particular alternative version of events that is closer to what actually happened is not as important to stress to people.

Out of curiosity--can you from your data conclude for sure that there weren't two planes involved, one that took the north of citgo path and another that conformed to the official flight path?

Craig Ranke's picture

2 planes

My sole point is that in my view, the best approach to the question of what happened at the Pentagon is first and foremost to make the general public aware that the official account has never been supported by solid evidence. The fact that in addition to that glaring omission of evidence we have reasons, such as the lack of debris and the evidence indicative of a flyover, to suspect a particular alternative version of events that is closer to what actually happened is not as important to stress to people.

This is exactly what we do in the first chapter of National Security Alert titled "A prima facie case for deception". So I guess we are in perfect agreement here. Unless of course you think the evidence we present proving the plane did not hit should be left out, minimized, or NOT the main focus. That isn't what you are saying right?

Out of curiosity--can you from your data conclude for sure that there weren't two planes involved, one that took the north of citgo path and another that conformed to the official flight path?

Yes.

Not only our data but out of the entire body of evidence there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that supports the notion of 2 planes other than Keith Wheelhouse's proven lie about the C-130 "shadowing" the attack jet and veering way during the explosion.

We know for fact that he lied about this and that the media reports in the Daily Press about his account served as a perfect excuse for others who may have seen the flyover.

Furthermore even though we knew there was nothing to support 2 planes we also knew that this was the purpose of proven liar/disinformation professional John Farmer who popped up out of nowhere and focused on CIT while working as THE main conduit for dubious govt supplied evidence such as the 84 RADES data. We KNEW his entire purpose was to float a 2-plane disinfo story, we called him out on it, foiled his plans by getting to the primary witnesses he planned to use (the Arlington Cemetery guys) and exposing them for the honest north side approach/C-130 witnesses that they really are.

Farmer planned to use their ambiguous Center for Military History transcripts (with names redacted) to support a wild disinfo theory that the E4B was the north side flyover and that AA77 still hit the building from the south side!

Even though we exposed his plot before it happened by interviewing the guys on camera on location he went on with it anyway and used Mark Gaffney's pathetic book on the E4B as his vehicle.

The full story about us exposing Farmer's failed 2-plane disinformation attempt before it was even launched is outlined in this article:

http://www.thepentacon.com/JohnFarmerDisinfo.htm

Aldo Marquis's picture

Thanks Keenan and Gretavo, but...

and perhaps could have been less strident about their flyover conclusion.

Why?

The plane flew on the north side of the gas station. This fact alone proves a flyover. It means the plane CAN'T hit the light poles, CAN'T show up low and level across the lawn as seen in the surveillance video frames, CAN'T hit the gen trailer with it's right wing, and CAN'T cause the internal directional damage leading to the C-ring hole. This is fact. We do not accept exotic weaponry like holograms as an explanation.
http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html

Not to mention Robert Turcios saw it pull up into an ascent and Darius Prather saw it "pivot up" over the highway. Holograms and planes about to hit the first floor of the pentagon DON'T pull up into ascents over the highway. Why would they stage light poles (and a gen trailer?) if they were going to crash the plane into the Pentagon?

We have Erik Dihle's supporting evidence of hearing people say they believed a bomb had went off and "a jet kept on going".

Most importantly we have Roosevelt Robert's account. I spoke with him. He knows what he saw. I clarified it. It was not the C-130 and could only be the attack jet. He realizes what he saw and is now scared to talk. Should we be less "strident" and back off because we only have one actual witness on record to seeing the plane fly away who is now scared to talk? Of course not. None of that means a thing. Not to mention we still have the north side flight path in itself. The fact is witnesses are scared to death once they are taken out of the fog of confusion and made aware of the implications of what they saw. Some are made aware of them before we even get to them. Take for instance, Dewitt Roseborough, someone we are more than confident saw the complete flyover.

Take a look and a LISTEN:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=449

Keenan's picture

direct evidence vs inference

I agree that the most *logical* conclusion to make based on all of the things you said above is that there must have been a flyover.

It's really just a matter of whether that conclusion is proven by direct evidence or by inference, which could be an important distinction when trying to campaign on this issue. To most people, without being able to show them either direct evidence or more substantial corroborated witness testimony of a flyover, stamping that conclusion with "proven" may seem like jumping the gun. As I've said before, I hope that continuing research and uncovering additional evidence will either corroborate the conclusion or expose an alternative scenario. A 757 sure as hell did not crash into the Pentagon, that we can be sure of, and it would be absolute lunacy to believe that the DNA of all the alleged passengers could have been identified if the plane disintegrated/burned up to the degreee claimed by the official legend.

We will probably never know all the details of what exactly transpired on 9/11 until we have subpoena powers in a court of law or something. The fact that we aren't being allowed by the authorities to know what really happened is criminal in of itself. I think that we do have sufficient evidence at this point, with or without directly *proving* a flyover, to prove that the authorities engaged in a deception at the Pentagon and a massive, ongoing cover-up.

Craig Ranke's picture

direct evidence

The north side approach is every bit as much direct evidence for a flyover as the symmetrical free fall collapse of building 7 is direct evidence for controlled demo.

It seems there is a lopsided standard of proof when comparing the WTC to the Pentagon that reaches to the far corners of even this site.

Keenan's picture

It's not an exact analogy

With WTC7, we have direct video evidence of free fall collapse, which can be observed, measured, calculated to the T by anyone. With the Pentagon, on the other hand, we are basing the flyover theory on a logical inference built from the theory of a north side path as determined using witness claims. One is direct evidence, the other is inferred and more roundabout and not quite as solid as the WTC direct CD evidence.

Welcome to the wtcd forum, Craig!

Craig Ranke's picture

I disagree

Free fall/symmetrical collapse technically only infers controlled demo.

Clearly it's the only possible conclusion but it is still an inference.

Same with the north side approach evidence. Since it's physically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical damage a flyover is the ONLY possible conclusion.

So while both certainly are direct evidence both conclusions are technically inferred.

(Roosevelt Roberts is equivalent to the nano-thermite paper as being direct evidence or confirmation for what has already been proven to be the only possible conclusion by the evidence in general so we'll leave that out of this analogy)

Obviously any person can view the WTC7 collapse video and calculate the rate of collapse etc but clearly anyone can just as easily view the witness interviews and plainly see that they unanimously point to the north side.

The primary difference is that free-fall collapse proving CD has been mired in scientific debate by experts from both sides and has therefore been effectively neutralized.

Not a single expert would EVER suggest it's possible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical damage at the Pentagon.

Not one has and not one ever will so the debate is reduced to the veracity of the witness claims which logical people who actually view the evidence in full seem to be able to easily understand has been validated to the point of redundancy.

Craig Ranke's picture

alternative scenario

you said: "I hope that continuing research and uncovering additional evidence will either corroborate the conclusion or expose an alternative scenario"

There is no alternative scenario.

Just saying that without presenting one is not scientific.

Hoping for things will not help us in our cause.

By refusing to flat out accept the undeniable implications of this evidence you are reacting very similarly to how Jon Gold does to controlled demo.

Sorry to be so blunt and I don't mean it as a personal insult but that is a perfect analogy.

Adam Syed's picture

Chris Sarns of AE911Truth has provided an alternative scenario

His theory is that a "breeze" caused a 737 loaded up with bombs to blow off course to the north side while all the physical damage was staged and the plane blew up and completely disintegrated just prior to impact without causing a crater in the lawn. Laughing

But seriously, the reason Ranke is so blunt (which the thinner skinned people take personally) is because he's absolutely right. All of the "classic" CIT "debunkers" like Adam Larson, Arabesque, Jim Hoffman, and Jimd3100 (who is a moderator at prisonplanet and bans anyone on the spot for promoting CIT's work) have never tried to reconcile a north approach with anything other than a flyover, because they know they can't. Their modus operandi has been to try and cast doubt on the veracity of the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. However, even though 4 witnesses is corroboration enough (their original Pentacon video), it was easier for Arabesque and Co., using the fog of propaganda, to convince the speed readers that maybe CIT was cherry picking or engaging in special pleading. As they got not only more visible but also more credible with more and more witnesses, the old CIT "debunkers" have gone quiet. Seen any Victronix or Arabesque posts on blogger lately? Have you seen Sparks talk about how CIT is "bollox?" or "Truthmover" Jules talking about how he's disappointed that DRG, Ed Asner, etc. just haven't looked at CIT as critically as he has? No, they've all gone quiet. Of course, they're still logging in and voting down the comments, but they can't argue the fact that 13 north side eyewitnesses represents mathematical proof that the north side is correct. (I don't know the exact mathematical formula but I certainly remember enough general concepts from "probability and statistics" courses in high school that the chance of all 13 witnesses being wrong is infinitesimally low.) None of them tried to say that maybe the north approach could be reconciled with an impact, because they knew they couldn't.

And what happens when someone tries to be the knight in shining armor for the other side and try to disprove flyover while accepting the evidence to which it points? You make an ass of yourself and completely discredit your credibility as Sarns has done with his Bugs Bunny scenario.

Keenan's picture

I didn't mean to imply that I believe in an alternative scenario

I am certainly not hoping for an alternative scenario, so I hope that's not how you interpreted my statement. In fact, I really do hope that additional witnesses, or videos, or other evidence will be found to corroborate a flyover, since that is the most likely scenario. But I don't think we can say that no more research/investigation needs to be done and we can go home and declare "case closed" at this point.

Look, for over 4 years I have resisted endorsing any specific theory of what exactly happened at the Pentagon, because I've seen that doing so too often was used as a trap to pigeonhole anybody who was a skeptic of the OCT of a 757 impact, focing them to argue for a specific theory that could then be attacked because of a lack of solid evidence for that theory. So, I have instead argued from a point of "I don't have to prove WHAT happened at the Pentagon in order to argue the obvious fact that a 757 did NOT crash there. It's the government's responsibility to prove what happened." Perhaps that is an outdated position now, what with the huge body of evidence published by CIT and other researchers more recently and I'm just shellshocked, who knows?

I disagree that it is a perfect analogy with Jon Gold, who claims that advocating the CD is a "speculative theory that hurts the movement." I have never said anythong of the sort regarding the flyover theory.

Adam Syed's picture

That's true...

Keenan and others here have never implied that the flyover conclusion hurts the movement by making it look crazy, as JG does with CD. I think the criticism on here toward CIT is simply one of strategy.

It's weird, on the one hand I perfectly understand CIT's bluntness about flyover being the only possible conclusion because my brain has banged itself against the walls of my skull trying to think of an alternative scenario and I can't think of one. On the other hand I can see the "strategy" argument too... What works better: forcing the medicine down someone's throat or simply putting the "new great tasting strawberry flavor" medicine bottle on the table and letting the person take it himself? This is probably what Casseia had in mind when she remarked that "It's plenty to say that they have first-person witness accounts of a contradictory flight plan." For an even medium-smart person, flyover is of course the logical conclusion!

I'm quite blown away by the printed testimony of Dewitt Roseborough, whose remark that he was in the south parking lot, heard a huge roar above his head, looked up, and saw a low-flying plane that he feared would crash onto the highway, then his attention was caught by an explosion and fireball over where it happened. We're at a point now where we've got Roosevelt Roberts, the 2nd hand testimony reported by Diehle, and the printed (but not re-confirmed in person) testimony of Dewitt Roseborough. CIT probably isn't making a big noise about Dewitt because Dewitt won't grant a personal interview, but clearly at one point he wasn't afraid of talking.

Craig Ranke's picture

misinterpreted analogy

I am certainly not hoping for an alternative scenario, so I hope that's not how you interpreted my statement.

That is not how I interpreted it. What I am saying is that hoping for anything is futile and pointless and a waste of time. It's time for action, not hope.

In fact, I really do hope that additional witnesses, or videos, or other evidence will be found to corroborate a flyover, since that is the most likely scenario. But I don't think we can say that no more research/investigation needs to be done and we can go home and declare "case closed" at this point.

THIS is the problem. It's exactly the same as refusing to embrace CD until more proof of planted bombs is uncovered. Let's face it, the movement didn't wait for the nano-thermite paper to embrace CD and tout it is as proof. Nor should they have. None of us can test the veracity of the nano-thermite paper. It is unverifiable by the layman unlike the witness evidence we present which can be verified with the source directly with a simple phone call. There is a lopsided standard of proof in the movement when comparing the Pentagon attack to the WTC.

Look, for over 4 years I have resisted endorsing any specific theory of what exactly happened at the Pentagon, because I've seen that doing so too often was used as a trap to pigeonhole anybody who was a skeptic of the OCT of a 757 impact, focing them to argue for a specific theory that could then be attacked because of a lack of solid evidence for that theory.

Right. So you admit that you have a psychological barrier when it comes to the Pentagon attack due to previous disinfo that fuels your lopsided standard of proof. While this is perfectly understandable, our point is that THIS is the problem when it comes to embracing the undeniable implications of the definitive evidence we present. There is not a "lack of solid evidence" for the north side approach that 100% PROVES a flyover. This is the point.

So, I have instead argued from a point of "I don't have to prove WHAT happened at the Pentagon in order to argue the obvious fact that a 757 did NOT crash there. It's the government's responsibility to prove what happened." Perhaps that is an outdated position now, what with the huge body of evidence published by CIT and other researchers more recently and I'm just shellshocked, who knows?

You're starting to get it. Yes it is outdated. And yes it is EXACTLY how Jon Gold argues against CD of WTC and similar to how the rest of TrueFaction argues against the Pentagon (although they won't even accept that the plane did not hit). WE KNOW we don't "need" to prove what happened to um "demand" an investigation, but the fact is that we HAVE and this definitive evidence should NOT be precluded with open ended vague questions or by asking the govt to prove what happened. They won't.

We think the notion of a new investigation into IF the 9/11 official story is false is silly. Yet this is what the movement and certainly Jon Gold is calling for. They won't investigate and convict themselves and we already have the proof. We demand an investigation into WHO the perpetrators really are under the premise that what we have been told has already been proven a complete lie. Because it has.

If you tell them to investigate CD, they will simply tell you there was no CD.

I disagree that it is a perfect analogy with Jon Gold, who claims that advocating the CD is a "speculative theory that hurts the movement." I have never said anythong of the sort regarding the flyover theory.

You missed the entire point of my analogy. I'm not saying that your attitude towards Pentagon attack evidence is similar to Jon Gold's attitude toward Pentagon attack evidence. I'm saying that your attitude toward Pentagon attack evidence is similar to his attitude to WTC CD evidence. He suggests that although it may be true, that it sounds too kooky to the average person and should not be used in campaigns.

The fact is that the evidence we provide is every bit as definitive as the evidence that has been provided at the WTC. In fact a case can be made that it would be much more effective for campaigning. Give the average joe (or congressman) a copy of the nano-thermite paper and National Security Alert and which do you think will have a more profound affect?

Scrubby's picture

wtc analogy..

Hi Craig ,

Keenan said:
So, I have instead argued from a point of "I don't have to prove WHAT happened at the Pentagon in order to argue the obvious fact that a 757 did NOT crash there. It's the government's responsibility to prove what happened." Perhaps that is an outdated position now, what with the huge body of evidence published by CIT and other researchers more recently and I'm just shellshocked, who knows?


Craig said:
You're starting to get it. Yes it is outdated. And yes it is EXACTLY how Jon Gold argues against CD of WTC

This is not a good analogy imo. The WTC equivalent of Keenans statement would ihmo be more like:
"I dont have to prove how exactly they blew up those buildings and what type of explosives have been used etc to argue the obvious fact that those buildings are blowing up right in front of our eyes and that the 'collapse' theory violates basic physics".
Ive never seen JG saying anything like that.
Please don't take this as an argument against your conclusions (ie, flyover proven beyond doubt), due to not having studied all your material yet i dont even have an opinion on that at this point...

Craig Ranke's picture

Not really...

Perhaps I shouldn't have said it is "exactly" how he argues against CD but Gold does not say he outright doesn't accept controlled demo.

He simply thinks it's not good for campaigning.

You are taking the analogy too literally when a broader picture is what applies.

To argue against campaigning for ANY evidence that proves MIHOP is foolish and detrimental to our efforts.

The information we present unequivocally proves MIHOP.

Keenan's picture

Wow, I would never have dreamed that someone...

would compare me to Jon GoldSurprised

But what do you think about 'insane Hussein's' comment above about strategy regarding whether to force the medicine down somebody's throat or simply putting the "new great tasting strawberry flavor" medicine bottle on the table and letting the person take it himself?

And casseis's comment?
http://www.wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2495#comment-18050
"I'm speaking just from a discourse analysis perspective...
and I suspect if you looked carefully at the language Gage uses, he says things more like "The speed of the collapse is not compatible with what we know about any kind of destruction other than explosive demolition" rather than "CD is an indisputable fact." We all agree that it is, and at this site most of us agree that there is no way a big jet hit the Pentagon based on what was left behind. For that matter, we also agree that CIT has good evidence contradicting the official flightplan. But apart from the one eyewitness, flyover is an inference. People rightfully balk at CIT's heavy-handed insistence that this inference is anything other than an inference."

Craig Ranke's picture

I don't think that is a logical approach...

We should not back down on the undeniable implications of evidence for CD of WTC or a flyover at the Pentagon.

I don't think it's fair to characterize that position as "forcing medicine down somebodies throat".

It's simply not shying away from the truth and the facts.

There is no more debate. We have proof. "9/11 WAS an inside job". Our slogan should not be "9/11 was probably an inside job!".

Of course there is nothing wrong with altering your rhetoric for strategic reasons depending on whomever it is you are speaking with at that moment and their level of being open to this type of info etc.

But I am talking in general here.....we should NOT be less "strident" when discussing the implications of the evidence for CD and this is also the case when it comes to the north side approach evidence proving a flyover.

BOTH conclusions are primarily based off "inference" from the evidence but neither are proven any less than the other.

Proof is proof. Dancing around that only creates the impression there is still a debate when there is not.

THAT is what is dangerous to our cause and in my opinion why people like Jon Gold are utterly useless.

As I said originally.....I didn't mean my Gold analogy as a personal insult. You are clearly a smart and logical guy whereas Gold is "pugnacious" and not so smart as characterized by Barrett!

But you straight up admitted to having a psychological barrier when it comes to the Pentagon due to past disinfo and that has clearly resulted in a reticence to accept the implications of what we present. This is perfectly understandable. I just showed up here to help you get over the "shellshock" of the full scope of what we have uncovered.
;)

Keenan's picture

"BOTH conclusions are

"BOTH conclusions are primarily based off "inference" from the evidence but neither are proven any less than the other."

It's mainly from a presentation-to-newbies perspective that the two don't appear to be at the same level of immediate self-evident-truth, at least in a way that can be groked within a very short time. I'm visualizing the two potential contrasting types of conversations to newbies that would go something like this:

A) Truther presenting WTC7 controlled demolition evidence to a newbie:

Truther: have you actually seen the controlled demolition of WTC7?

Newbie: WTC7? no

Truther: watch this [start video of WTC7 collapse]

Newbie: [about 6 seconds later] Oh...Oh wowwwww...holy sh**! Yup, it's pretty obvious...that's obvious...


B) Truther presenting Pentagon flyover evidence to a newbie:

Truther: Do you know that no plane crashed at the Pentagon, but flew over the top instead?

Newbie: Huh? Are you kidding?

Truther: Nope. It's been proven. The plane definitely flew over the Pentagon

Newbie: That sounds crazy. How do you know? Where is your proof? Do you have a video?

Truther: No but there were 13 Eyewitnesses who corroborate each other to prove that the official flight path was staged and that a plane actually approached the Pentagon from a different path, but didn't hit. They staged the damage to light poles and the Pentagon to make it LOOK like the plane hit at a certain angle in order to trick people who saw the plane approach, into thinking it crashed, even though it didn't...

Newbie: Wait, what are you talking about? But why would they do that? That doesn't make much sense. I don't know, that sounds pretty convoluted to me. Show me some evidence.

Truther: The fact that the plane flew at a different path PROVES that it didn't hit but flew over instead

Newbie: How's that? I don't get it.

Truther: Ok, check it out...first of all look at these pictures of the Pentagon right after the event that show that there is no hole large enough for a 757 to have entered, and you can see that no visible wreckage was left on the lawn. See? Ok, now consider that for the plane...

Newbie: But, did anybody SEE the plane fly over the Pentagon?

Truther: Ok, wait, can you watch this 81 minute video? It will show you how they did it

Newbie: Hmmmm...can't you just tell me in like a few minutes...I don't know if I have that much patience. If it takes 81 minutes to understand, that seems overly complicated to me.


I guess I'm just trying to get my head around presenting the flyover conclusion quickly to a newbie without losing the person when I'm so used to being able to convert people in 6 seconds with the WTC7 video. Yes, I know, you will probably say that the proper way to do it is to just let the person watch National Security Alert, and in 81 minutes you will be able to show someone the poof.

"But you straight up admitted to having a psychological barrier when it comes to the Pentagon due to past disinfo and that has clearly resulted in a reticence to accept the implications of what we present. This is perfectly understandable. I just showed up here to help you get over the "shellshock" of the full scope of what we have uncovered.
;)"

It's not that I don't accept the implications of what you present. Like I've said, I already accept that the logical conclusion is that there must have been a flyover. And now that I've seen the media quotes by Roseborough and heard the phone call with him refusing to talk about it anymore, which is the clincher (in terms of "were there any witnesses to a flyover") after we already have what Roosevelt Roberts reported and Erik Dihle's supporting evidence, I am pretty much over my "shellshock" and am willing to settle on a specific theory now of what actually happened at the Pentagon. At this point it's really just a matter of thinking about how to campaign with it when you can't show someone the "proof" in, like a matter of seconds the way you can with WTC7. Which is why you made NSA...

If you could somehow add in the material about Roseborough to NSA I would think that would be really persuasive, even though Roseborough is refusing to verify and confirm anything at this point. Do you plan on doing this in a future edition?

Adam Syed's picture

If someone's a complete newbie,

I don't make CIT's research the very first thing I talk about. Many local truth groups make compilation DVDs (of 2 or more documentaries/lectures/etc.) to hand out on the street. In Cincinnati we have a guy who can put 4 films onto one disc. Lately that combination has been Improbable Collapse, Freedom to Fascism, and National Security Alert. I'll tell people to watch Improbable Collapse first, then National Security Alert, because by that point they're more willing to go down the rabbit hole.

Craig Ranke's picture

The main reason I signed up here

is because just the other day, on November 4th you said:

"I'm personally undecided about the flyover conclusion"
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2502#comment-18105

and I saw gretavo making even stronger statements doubting a flyover and others here suggesting we should not be so "strident" on the matter similar to what Jon Gold preaches about CD.

I am not concerned with what you choose to approach "newbies" with first although, yes, I am quite certain that giving them a copy of National Security Alert to take home would end up being extremely convincing to them.

So now, just 4 days later, it seems as though you ARE decided. That's good Keenan. That is exactly why I joined.

To discuss this and answer any questions and see if we can get on the same page.

"It's not that I don't accept the implications of what you present. Like I've said, I already accept that the logical conclusion is that there must have been a flyover."

Yes, in fact it's the only POSSIBLE conclusion. Which is why we are so strident and similarly why we can say that CD has been proven solely based off only the inferred evidence of a symmetrical free-fall collapse of building 7.

It is the only possible conclusion.

Anyway, it seems as though we are on the same page now so that's good.

If you could somehow add in the material about Roseborough to NSA I would think that would be really persuasive, even though Roseborough is refusing to verify and confirm anything at this point. Do you plan on doing this in a future edition?

Perhaps but that is not in the immediate plans.

Keenan's picture

give and take, 2-way streets, constructive criticism

Craig, you have made it clear that you singed up here for ONE purpose: To convert any level of less-than-complete-certainty about the flyover theory you had observed by various members of this site over the last few days into solid Yesses, utilizing tools of education and, particularly, logical persuasion delivered with your distinctive verbal HAMMER, and have stated clearly that you are "not here to debate". I can understand that after you and Aldo have spent a few years doing all the hard work you've done to compile this evidence, and have probably become exhausted having to spend so much time arguing with both genuine, as well as fake skeptics of your work and conclusions, your patience has probably run thin.

I think what rubs some people the wrong way is what appears to be your refusal to be open to constructive criticism regarding your style of presentation and cock-sure assertions/logic with no room given to differing but valid view points. I think you will find that there are many very intelligent members on this forum who have acquired a large amount of extremely useful experience with the issues/evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy and the best ways to present this material to others. Gretavo, for example, has put in an enormous amount of time doing public outreach on a daily basis about 9/11, particularly with his daily noon-hour tabling and talks with strangers in Harvard Square just about every single day for several years now, and has developed extensive knowledge about what is or is not effective and how people perceive the level of quality of various kinds of evidence we can present.

For example, several of us are of the opinion that the level of direct evidence proving the Controlled Demolition of WTC7 in the form of videos that constitute physical evidence of free-fall, sequenced cutter charges/squibs, and shockwaves, etc., constitutes a stronger level of direct evidence than that for the flyover (Pentagon), which is inferred from eyewitness testiimony of a NoC flight path, but which does not have any direct physical evidence, such as videos, to back it up (even though we accept that flyover is the logical conclusion).

Rather than conceding this point to us, you seem to keep taking offense to this and hitting us with the hammer of "IT'S NOT LOGICAL TO SAY THAT!!" and trying to compare this view to the way Jon Gold pretends to be agnostic about CD, which most of us feel is not a good analogy. But you have to understand that just hammering the same assertion over and over again that, "NO, IT'S THE SAME LEVEL OF DIRECT EVIDENCE, JUST ACCEPT IT OR I WILL COMPARE YOU WITH JON GOLD" can be very offputting and is not likely to give you the desired outcome of convincing us to adopt your position. If we are not able to do any more with this point than merely repeat our positions to each other, then perhaps it is time to agree to disagree on this point.

Yes, I understand that your "point is that both have been proven and nobody here or anywhere has put forth a logical argument showing otherwise and most here have agreed," but we are saying that that is NOT the only issue here. It would be great to see you be more open to discussing other important issues regarding presentation style and strategy because, since we are all on the same side, we want to help each other to be as credible and successful as possible in our efforts to educate the public and officials about 9/11 truth, while minimizing things that turn people off, etc.

Craig Ranke's picture

presentation style?

Do you have constructive criticism regarding the presentation style of National Security Alert or the way our website is designed?

If so I am all ears. Feel free to create a thread about it if this is something you feel needs to be addressed and for whatever reason think I am refusing to be open about it.

Please make sure to spell out specifically what you think is not effective regarding the "style" and why.

National Security Alert and the website are what constitute our "presentation" and what people will see when reviewing this information and what we are asking you to campaign with.

But, yes, as you acknowledged my reason for coming here was to address the evidence and help you understand how the north side approach evidence unequivocally proves a flyover.

That is the purpose of this thread.

It seems that you understand and agree with me now that we present proof of a flyover, correct?

Craig Ranke's picture

This is an incorrect characterization of what I have said...

For example, several of us are of the opinion that the level of direct evidence proving the Controlled Demolition of WTC7 in the form of videos that constitute physical evidence of free-fall, sequenced cutter charges/squibs, and shockwaves, etc., constitutes a stronger level of direct evidence than that for the flyover (Pentagon), which is inferred from eyewitness testiimony of a NoC flight path, but which does not have any direct physical evidence, such as videos, to back it up (even though we accept that flyover is the logical conclusion).

Rather than conceding this point to us, you seem to keep taking offense to this and hitting us with the hammer of "IT'S NOT LOGICAL TO SAY THAT!!"

I never replied to your claims about WTC evidence that way.

I have said that I respect your choice to lead with that evidence and I am not trying to convince you to do otherwise.

It is your personal choice to lead with whatever evidence you feel constitutes the strongest proof.

I personally feel that the Pentagon is better for campaigning for a few other reasons that we don't need to get into right now because that is not what this thread is about.

But as long as you now agree that the evidence we present proves a flyover then as far as I am concerned we are on the same page.

gretavo's picture

the flyover is a useful tool

When talking to people who are skeptical of 9/11 truth, because it provides a plausible scenario that explains the numerous eyewitnesses people have been told saw the plane flying towards the Pentagon. The idea that it was "sleight of hand" with a plane flying over and an explosion going off just at the right time to create the illusion of an impact--that can help people to understand a very basic premise required for accepting the truth about 9/11. That it was a staged deception, with things DESIGNED to look a certain way to lead us to false, if seemingly logical conclusions. Whether the plane that flew over was on the north side or not, and what exact role a weird cab driver has been playing in the deception, are simply not the most salient aspects of this issue. Absence of verifiable, identified debris is.

That said, any information on the record is good to have, and for that reason CIT's collection of evidence has a great deal of potential to play a significant role, but it is by no means an airtight account of what actually happened, or at least we can't assume it to be yet. Further down in this thread I think Craig and I got to this impasse, where the only thing that I think we disagree on is how likely it might be that their work is part of a deliberate disinfo campaign. Naturally Craig says that is not true but he also says it is illogical to believe it could be true. I disagree, but that is not the same as saying I believe it to be true. It is perfectly logical to hold something to be a possibility as long as there is a reasonable probability that it could be true. I don't think the WTC demolition is subject to such a reasonable doubt, but the sincerity of CIT, well, I just don't know--again, that should not be taken as a slight against Craig and Aldo, just a logical assessment of the situation by someone who doesn't know them or any of the witnesses personally.

Craig Ranke's picture

Yeah we're at an impasse alright

I came here with honest intentions to answer your questions and address your concerns.

You've now explained how it's IMPOSSIBLE to address your concerns and no matter how strong the evidence is that we uncover you will always suspect us personally as being operatives.

Hey it was worth a try.

Take care gretavo.

gretavo's picture

k, thx for playing, buh bye!

Apparently you came here to act like an ass then leave in a huff. You aren't the first, you won't be the last.

Adam Syed's picture

Take for instance, Dewitt

Take for instance, Dewitt Roseborough, someone we are more than confident saw the complete flyover.

Take a look and a LISTEN:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=449

 

Wow.  That's chilling.  He was clearly another flyover witness who now will not talk because he's aware of the implications of what he saw.

Keenan's picture

I just listened to the phone

I just listened to the phone call with Roseborough for the first time and do have to say that his fear (or gag order?) to discuss where he saw the plane and what it was doing with Craig on the phone along with his earlier published quotes of seeing a plane flying away after the explosion is VERY compelling! Although Roseborough is not a verified, confirmed witness like the others, it definately gives the impression that the witness evidence is indeed stacking up in favor of corroberating a flyover...if we could just get someone like Roseborough to talk...wow it makes you wonder how many other potential witnesses to a flyover/flyaway were either ignored by the media or are afraid to talk.

Craig Ranke's picture

flyover witnesses won't talk

.wow it makes you wonder how many other potential witnesses to a flyover/flyaway were either ignored by the media or are afraid to talk.

Exactly.

It's the same reason why out of dozens or hundreds of people who had to have been involved with the preparation and execution of this conspiracy there has not been one single direct whistleblower. Despite the fact that no doubt many were compartmentalized at the time and had no clue what they were working on (but likely do now).

The notion that it would be easy to find witnesses to the flyover is ludicrous.

The only reason that ANY of the witnesses have talked to us is because they were deceived as intended and completely clueless as to the implications of what they witnessed.

Now that they know, all of them have clammed up.

(yet NONE have accused us of misrepresenting their claims)

Keenan's picture

deleted

deleted

Tahooey's picture

Pentagon Pet Theories

Forgive me if I'm being repetitive or this has been addressed elsewhere, but I had a couple of pet theories on the pentagon I wanted to run by CIT and other knowledgeable folks here.

Theory 1) A missile was launched from the gen trailer.  I believe this may explain

a) The damage to the trailer

b) The internal structural damage that was directional in nature.

c) The video frames from the security camera that capture "something" blazing across the view

and possibly? d) That round thing found inside and claimed to be an airplane part.

Theory 2) The cab driver "wasn't supposed to be involved".  He drove around some obstruction that was intended to stop the public from witnessing the staging of the light poles on the bridge.  To stop the unexpected witness, one of the people doing the staging shot at his car, causing the hole in windshield and tear in seat.  The cab driver, fearing for his life, agreed to go along with whatever these guys dreamed up.  Split second decision-making not always being the best, and having no way to actually drop the light pole onto him in the driver's seat without first putting a bullet in him, the perpetrators figured the cab driver could bolster their story better alive than dead from gunshot. I believe this may explain:

a) how the windshield broke without a scratch on the hood

b) statements made by the driver who "wasn't supposed to be involved"

c) how & why such an individual (an actual cab driver incidentally married to an FBI employee) became part of such a conspiracy to begin with.

Craig Ranke's picture

Although extremely unlikely

Although extremely unlikely we think the ONLY possible chance a missile was involved would be if it was launched from directly in front of the building. But of course this would be impossible to prove so we feel there is no use in making such an assertion.

But the damage to the trailer is not consistent with such a scenario particularly if you consider the fence in front of it that looks like it has this cookie cutter perfect round hole in it, in my opinion indicating it was pre-fabricated.

It definitely wasn't caused by a missile fired from the trailer or anywhere in front of it.

We're supposed to believe the tilted up right engine caused that hole which is also ridiculous since the hole is all the way to the ground and the generator damage isn't.

Of course NONE of it matches the dimensions of a 757.

This shot shows how you can see right through the other side because it was completely blown out:

I think that is indicative of explosives.

I highly doubt a missile was shot from there.

More info on the generator here:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=6

As far as your Lloyde theory goes, that DEFINITELY does not jive with the evidence.

First of all the physical damage to the interior of his cab is too extensive including the dash being totally mangled and the passenger seat being knocked off the hinge. This is apparent from video footage of that day as well as images taken the very next day and the exclusive images we took of the cab in 2008 preserved on his property in the country.

These are private images Lloyde's wife said they took on 9/12/2001:


That damage was not caused by a gun shot and had to have been pre-fabricated.

This means Lloyde would have to be aware of this in advance.

Furthermore Lloyde does not behave as someone who was unwillingly involved. If that was the case he'd be scared. He is not remotely scared, is clearly happy to talk about his experience with a big smile on his face, and was heavily used in the propaganda.

The notion they would shoot at some random old man and then immediately coerce him into calmly participating in the staging of this absolutely CRITICAL make or break scene while the Pentagon burned behind them and then to allow him to do several media interviews and roam free to talk to whomever he wants while simply hoping he'll never leak is rather silly.

Lloyde knows full well what he did on 9/11 and he is not the least bit ashamed or nervous about it.

If you haven't seen it yet I highly recommend you view Eye of the Storm:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-eyeofthestorm.html

casseia's picture

This particular post is fulled of unsupported assertions

and it's the kind of statement that marginalizes CIT. You don't believe the damage is consistent with a gun shot. You don't believe that Lloyde behaves as someone who was coerced. And finally, Lloyde "knows full well what he did on 9/11 and is not the least bit ashamed."

One thing you may discover about this site, if you stick around, is that whenever anyone is is extremely pigheaded about anything, they are subjected to a lot of "meta" scrutiny from site regulars. We ask ourselves, what would be the point of someone inserting him or herself into the 9/11 discourse with this agenda if they were operating from bad faith? From good faith?

The "bad faith" interpretation of CIT is that you guys are deliberately engineering conflict around the issue of the Pentagon. Hoffman, Victronix, and jimd98642756320 are most assuredly doing the same thing, exactly. But the enemy of our enemy is almost NEVER our friend solely on that basis. Tag-team acts are commonplace.

The point of this conflict might be simply to distract people from what should be the number one priority right now, which is to surgically separate our imaginary enemy in "AfPak" (the Taliban and/or al Qaeda and/or al Talibaqaeda) from the whole 9/11 narrative so that that narrative cannot justify killing people there.

Tahooey's picture

the pentagon diversion

Hi Cass,

I'm open to bad faith possibilities but I suspect the rigidity comes more from a conviction of belief after such a large undertaking to gather and assemble the evidence.

Although maybe time will come for CIT to move on to bigger (and better?) things - WTC witnesses - there's got to be scads of evidence from anyone who saw either of the plane impacts to anyone who might've heard / seen / smelled explosives (or not), to rescue and clean up workers who saw pools of molten metal.  I wish we could get their names and memories on record before the years and opportunity slip away. All of which might prove AfPak had pretty much nothing to do with 911.  As if we need any more proof at this point?

 

Adam Syed's picture

Hey Cass,

The reason Craig says that Lloyde England is proud of his involvement is because he's grinning from ear to ear when he says "I'm in it... it was planned." Compare this to say Roosevelt Roberts or Dewitt Roseborough, who are clearly scared to talk at all let alone with a smile on their faces. Craig does have a really good point here.

9/11 truth is a very bizarre world, so I wouldn't rule out anything, but I think the bad faith interpretation that CIT could be yet another form of controlled opposition (whose job is to couch hard evidence with conclusions in such a way as to cause division) is extremely unlikely. I've met them in person in addition to collaborating online quite regularly this year, and clearly they've uncovered hard evidence proving the OCT false, unless all the witnesses are lying, which seems even more unlikely and unnecessary.

I was probably a little harsh with the words "force the medicine down peoples' throats" but in a sense it is valid; by way of example my parents are close minded to 9/11 truth as a whole. When I pleaded with them to watch a particular documentary which destroyed the official myth, he felt like I was forcing it down his throat. I had to ask many times before he gave in, when he did it was with this exasperated wrinkled look on his forehead, etc. My point is that I was not being a jerk about it with my dad, I was earnestly pleading with him to open his mind. 9/11 truth medicine itself is a bitter red pill to swallow.

So yes, the actual rhetoric that a particular activist who wants to spread CIT's information uses can be tailored to the activist. One particular activist might say "Check out this documentary in which 13 eyewitnesses to the pentagon strike place the plane in a totally different spot than where the official reports place it. At first sounds like a nitpicky detail but BOY what a fascinating rabbit hole this one is! For example, if the plane was way over here, how could it have knocked down those light poles way over there?" This might pique peoples' intrigue more than the on-the-surface outlandish conclusion: "Hey, check out this documentary that proves that the Pentagon plane actually flew over it timed with a fireball set off internally to fake a plane crash scene!"

Scrubby's picture

hm

The reason Craig says that Lloyde England is proud of his involvement is because he's grinning from ear to ear when he says "I'm in it... it was planned." Compare this to say Roosevelt Roberts or Dewitt Roseborough, who are clearly scared to talk at all let alone with a smile on their faces. Craig does have a really good point here.

You can call that a 'really good point' , but to me it sounds *highly* speculative.
"had to have been pre-fabricated." , "big smile on his face" , "not nervous" etc.. seriously.
What do we know about Lloyd, what type of guy he is etc etc to even try to make such assumptions ? Its way over the top imo.
And i dont think this is the type of stuff that "unequivocally proves MIHOP." Quite to the contrary, it distracts from and discredits evidence which does indeed unequivocally prove MIHOP.
Im not saying thats on purpose, but its how it appears to me.

Adam Syed's picture

Not saying Lloyde's ear-to-ear grin proves MIHOP.

Am saying that there's enough eyewitness corroboration of the actual flight path, refuting the official path, to prove MIHOP.

gretavo's picture

I'm looking forward...

...to your blog entry on this subject, Casseia... I mean, to play devil's advocate for a second, it's fine to *say* something is our number one priority, but as they say, talk is cheap!

The point of this conflict might be simply to distract people from what should be the number one priority right now, which is to surgically separate our imaginary enemy in "AfPak" (the Taliban and/or al Qaeda and/or al Talibaqaeda) from the whole 9/11 narrative so that that narrative cannot justify killing people there.

Craig Ranke's picture

What's with the unwarranted hostility casseia?

Sorry casseia but your hostile tone is uncalled for and your accusations are flat out false.

"This particular post is fulled of unsupported assertions and it's the kind of statement that marginalizes CIT"

That's a pretty harsh claim to make without providing any legitimate examples.

Besides it is impossible for any statement we make to "marginalize" us. That has to be done by other people or entities such as the mainstream media or 911blogger who refuse to report on this information or give us a platform to discuss it. I can only conclude from your tone that you wish this site would follow suit. Correct me if I am wrong.

Even worse, your accusation that my post is "fulled" of unsupported assertions is out of line since you were unable to provide any legitimate examples. Here is all you cite:

"You don't believe the damage (to Lloyde's cab) is consistent with a gun shot."

That is not "unsupported". That is a fact that I just backed up with photographic evidence of the damage to the interior of the cab. In fact even the windshield damage is clearly not consistent with a gunshot. Are you really suggesting that damage could have been caused with a gun shot after looking at those photos? I think you are simply reacting emotionally although I can't figure out why. Perhaps you can shed some light on that for all of us. Either way a retraction for your false accusation is in order.

"You don't believe that Lloyde behaves as someone who was coerced."

Quite true. But this also is not "unsupported" as I explained my reasoning for this belief. I have firsthand experience spending several hours with the man and at no time did he exhibit fear or shame. Only pride, glee, and a complete lack of regret. Not only this but I provide video taped evidence of this demeanor showing him smiling while he talks about it being a "planned" event by the people with all the money and how he's "in it" and they "came across the highway together". The notion that my belief he is not afraid or ashamed of his involvement is certainly not "unsupported" so once again a retraction for your false accusation is in order.

And finally, Lloyde "knows full well what he did on 9/11 and is not the least bit ashamed."

Again, this is also not "unsupported" since I have firsthand experience spending several hours with the man. There isn't a reason on earth to suggest that he DOESN'T know what he did on 9/11 since he is quite lucid and is very detailed concerning what has proven to be a false account. The north side evidence proves he is lying. Suggesting he is somehow completely unaware of what he is saying or what is actions were would be "unsupported". To suggest he is aware, as any human would be, is simply common sense. So once again a retraction for your false accusation is in order because so far you have not been able to provide one single example of an unsupported claim that I have made.

One thing you may discover about this site, if you stick around, is that whenever anyone is is extremely pigheaded about anything, they are subjected to a lot of "meta" scrutiny from site regulars. We ask ourselves, what would be the point of someone inserting him or herself into the 9/11 discourse with this agenda if they were operating from bad faith? From good faith?

That's fine casseia and you can feel free to do that all you want. But if you make accusations against us and our motives you better support them with facts and evidence otherwise you will be throwing out false innuendo and baseless attacks against honest citizens who have uncovered information proving the 9/11 operation a deception. Such behavior will make you no different from the gossip clique at truthaction. Is that what you want this site to become? I sure hope not so I hope you will retract your false accusations against us and remove your hostile/defensive tone when addressing me. Thanks.

The "bad faith" interpretation of CIT is that you guys are deliberately engineering conflict around the issue of the Pentagon. Hoffman, Victronix, and jimd98642756320 are most assuredly doing the same thing, exactly. But the enemy of our enemy is almost NEVER our friend solely on that basis. Tag-team acts are commonplace.

Whoa.

This is WAY out of line.

Do any of those people provide evidence regarding the Pentagon attack? Has ANYBODY other than CIT gone there and interviewed witnesses and provided that information on video tape for the world? Can you cite an instance where we have attacked others in the movement unprovoked as they have us? No you can not because we do not. We don't attack anyone. Yes we respond sternly to attacks as I am to you right now but we couldn't care less about other people unless they are maligning our name and accomplishments.

We aren't asking you to believe us casseia. We are asking you to believe the witnesses. For you to put us on the same level of ANY of the disruptors who attack us online and who have NOT provided a shred of evidence exposing the Pentagon attack deception is unconscionable. A full retraction and apology is in order for this ridiculous comparison/suggestion.

The point of this conflict might be simply to distract people from what should be the number one priority right now, which is to surgically separate our imaginary enemy in "AfPak" (the Taliban and/or al Qaeda and/or al Talibaqaeda) from the whole 9/11 narrative so that that narrative cannot justify killing people there.

What?

Frankly I have no idea how you could possibly suggest that our investigation into the Pentagon attack and the massive body of independent verifiable evidence we provide exposing the deception could POSSIBLY be considered a "distraction".

You are coming from a VERY strange place with all this and I strongly suggest you let it go by retracting these ridiculous claims instead of continuing to derail this thread by dragging down the discourse with your unwarranted suspicions.

You have no business interjecting innuendo to cast doubt on us personally when you are clearly unable to address the definitive evidence we present.

Tahooey's picture

I wouldn't take it personally Craig

harsh as it may seem, Casseia's message is (I believe) intended as constructive criticism.  I really don't want to break this down point by point as you've done, but suffice to say, my intepretation of "unsupported assertions" are the following:

"had to have been pre-fabricated."

Whose to say the damage wasn't caused by a front end loader stabbing the cab with a pole on the spot at the spur of the moment?  Unlikely, yes, but personally I don't believe it "had to have been pre-fabricated" although admittedly I didn't see the damage with my own eyes.  But with the necessary equipment on hand (at the nearby construction site?), a lot of things can happen on the spot.

"Furthermore Lloyde does not behave as someone who was unwillingly involved. If that was the case he'd be scared. He is not remotely scared, is clearly happy to talk about his experience with a big smile on his face"

Some people behave differently in situations of guilt, shame, etc.  He should be scared to talk to anyone, but perhaps his guilt drives him to do so?  I can't really explain his behavior but I also can't take it as proof of guilt; evidence perhaps. Like you said, someone should bring him in for further questioning, polygraph, etc.


"The notion they would shoot at some random old man and then immediately coerce him into calmly participating"

This was 9/11, why would anyone need to behave calmly?  That it happened to be his demeanor is not proof of complicity.  In my hypothetical scenario, he was relieved to have no bullet in his head and to know he had been adopted by the team that was in control of things.

The damage to the cab does not preclude a gunshot.  Kicking out the windshield would be a lot easier with a bullet hole for a starting point.  But seeing the dash and seat makes me think this was done with some heavy equipement.

Lloyde knows full well what he did on 9/11 and he is not the least bit ashamed or nervous about it.

It doesn't make sense that he's not nervous about it.  On the one side is truth and justice and possible treason charges, on the other side are murderous masterminds who control a lot of lives that would just as soon give Mr England a one way ticket to Jimmy Hoffa-land as let him point fingers at cutouts. So his behavior does not make sense.  He should be nervous from one side or the other, or both, why he isn't I would ask you to hypothesize.

Anyway, my message is to please take Cass's post not as a hostile assault but rather as a worst case analysis of your discourse style. I'm pretty sure we're all on the same side.

Craig Ranke's picture

I'm not here to argue or debate

I'm here to educate you on what we have accomplished and the implications thereof because there seemed to be some misunderstandings.

The main point of this thread that I prefer not to be diverted from is that a north side approach unequivocally proves the plane did not hit the light poles, generator trailer, or the building. In other words, it proves a flyover.

We will never know the true level of Lloyde's involvement and yes I'll concede for the sake of argument that there is a SLIGHT chance that he was coerced or is unwillingly involved but the evidence is VERY strong that this is not the case.

The north side evidence proves the cab scene staged whether or not the damage to the cab was fabricated on the scene or before so that type of speculation is irrelevant.

Either way Lloyde would be entirely aware that this scene was staged and how his cab really got damaged.

That is the point here.

Anyway, my message is to please take Cass's post not as a hostile assault but rather as a worst case analysis of your discourse style.

It WAS a hostile assault. I did not make any unsupported assertions yet she used innuendo and speculation to cast doubt on me personally.

Tahooey's picture

unsupported assertions

some might interpret this as an unsupported assertion: "We will never know the true level of Lloyde's involvement"

It reminds me of the similar phrase "we will never know what really happened on 9/11" - I'd imagine no words could make the perpetrators more happy. We probably never will know, but to boldly assert that "we will never know" kind of irks me. How can anyone say what we will or won't know in the future?

words are sons of bitches.  no offense to bitches, i am a big fan of dogs.

PS consider me educated; you have done great work.

Craig Ranke's picture

it's a logical assertion

It wasn't an assertion regarding evidence so it's not fair to label it "unsupported".

It was a logical assertion given the nature of the crime and the specificness of the detail in question.

Even if the deception is uncovered the chance of somehow finding out Lloyde's exact level of involvement seems pretty silly.

It's not the same as comparing it to one day uncovering the operation in general.

While I highly doubt that EVERYTHING regarding this complex operation could ever be exposed, Aldo and I have proven that it's possible for just a couple of regular guys to uncover enough to unravel a MAJOR component of it showing how the deception CAN be revealed.

So I am with you there. I also hate it when people say that it is impossible to expose.

"PS consider me educated; you have done great work."

That's what I like to hear. Thanks man and peace!

Now let's bring this info to the streets and get EVERYONE educated!

Tahooey's picture

"the chance of somehow

"the chance of somehow finding out Lloyde's exact level of involvement seems pretty silly"

I really don't find it silly that he might at some point be forced or convinced into telling everything he knows; or at least tipping his hand with the use of specific questions and polygraph results.  Cross-examining him under polygraph might shed light on how he came to be involved, from whom he received his instructions, and what specifically those instructions were.

Craig Ranke's picture

I sure hope you're right!

I guess it just seems like too good of a dream to come true.

gretavo's picture

a few observations

1) Lloyde England is a bit of a weird guy--and I don't think that's an act--I think that deep down Lloyde is eccentric. Not saying whether I think he is being coerced or bribed to participate in the cover-up, just that if he is either of those, or innocently mixed up with this, I don't think he can help acting weird about it. He may well have been honestly interested in David Icke--that wouldn't surprise me. It also wouldn't surprise me if the Icke book was planted in his cab, though this would mean that he and his wife would have to be in on the planting, whatever the purpose may have been.

2)"We aren't asking you to believe us casseia. We are asking you to believe the witnesses."

Since you collected and publicized the witness statements, we have to believe or disbelieve both they and you, Craig, together. I say this because I don't think it's likely that somehow the witnesses were lined up with false testimony in the hope you or someone else would come to interview them. The possibilities are a) that you and the witnesses are honest or that b) you are in cahoots with the witnesses for some disinfo purpose. Sorry if that offends you, but what good would it do me or anyone to give you the benefit of the doubt on this? If someone were to say that I, Gretavo, *could* in theory be a disinfo agent I would congratulate them on their healthy skepticism and remind them as I do often that I am absolutely 100% trustworthy and honest, but that they would be fools to take my word for it.

"For you to put us on the same level of ANY of the disruptors who attack us online and who have NOT provided a shred of evidence exposing the Pentagon attack deception is unconscionable."

And yet you say that if we think there is more direct evidence for controlled demolition than for the north side flyover the *we* are acting like Jon Gold. I think that's not only hypocritical but that it's simply wrong. Witness testimony is not the same as physical evidence. Something inferred based on indisputable physical evidence (free-fall collapse implying use of explosives) is not the same as something inferred from witness testimony (north of citgo flight path implying flyover) because those witnesses COULD be lying whereas it is much less likely that the free fall of WTC7 could somehow be a deception.

Craig Ranke's picture

healthy skepticism vs baseless/illogical paranoia

1) Lloyde England is a bit of a weird guy--and I don't think that's an act--I think that deep down Lloyde is eccentric. Not saying whether I think he is being coerced or bribed to participate in the cover-up, just that if he is either of those, or innocently mixed up with this, I don't think he can help acting weird about it. He may well have been honestly interested in David Icke--that wouldn't surprise me.

None of this speculation is relevant to the fact that the evidence proves the light pole and cab scene staged. I find it odd that you would speculate about this at all without even having viewed the evidence. You were unaware of the Icke book earlier today. Did you view the entire "Eye of the Storm" presentation this afternoon where I ask him about the Icke book? It's 100% clear to me from his reaction that he certainly did not read the book. To consider the presence of that book within a proven staged scene of arguably the most controversial and questionable facet of arguably the most controversial, questionable, and significant attack on our nation (that you already 100% believe was a deception) a mere coincidence is far from a logical consideration in my opinion.

"Since you collected and publicized the witness statements, we have to believe or disbelieve both they and you, Craig, together. I say this because I don't think it's likely that somehow the witnesses were lined up with false testimony in the hope you or someone else would come to interview them. The possibilities are a) that you and the witnesses are honest or that b) you are in cahoots with the witnesses for some disinfo purpose. Sorry if that offends you, but what good would it do me or anyone to give you the benefit of the doubt on this?"

Healthy skepticism is fine and I have no problem with that at all. But to refuse to accept such a massive body of independent verifiable evidence that proves the official narrative false you better have a good reason for it. Nobody has cited a valid or logical reason for not accepting the information we present or accusing Aldo and I of being disinfo agents. We keep to ourselves and don't attack others in the movement, we make logical coherent arguments and back up our claims with evidence, we are utterly despised by all the people you DO think are disinfo, and the consensus of people on this site DOES seem to already agree with us. It's not like we are some newbies coming out of nowhere with a bunch of outlandish claims. You've all had plenty of time to check into the veracity of the information and do all you can to look for ANYTHING we may have done that would arouse suspicion or warrant a refusal to accept the evidence.

If you can't cite a single valid reason to suspect us of being disinfo you are only muddying the waters and casting doubt on us needlessly by making that assertion.

It's good to be skeptical but at some point, when people have repeatedly passed all the tests and only behaved logically and with integrity while backing their claims up it's important to welcome, embrace, and accept them as honest patriots who are on your side if you ever want to get anywhere in this psychological war.

The coordination around a "disinfo" operation on the scope of what we present including people from all walks of life (citizen immigrant mechanics, cemetery maintenance workers, gas station attendants etc) would be astronomical. It's not the least bit logical but more importantly there is no MOTIVE. Particularly now that the operation has been completely successful and we have been committed to permanent global war well into the next administration.

They haven't a reason on earth to coordinate such a complex false effort proving the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

Bottom line you can't cite one single legitimate or significant reason why we should not be trusted.

We are BEGGING you and everyone to check the info out thoroughly (which as of this morning I am quite sure you hadn't done).

And yet you say that if we think there is more direct evidence for controlled demolition than for the north side flyover the *we* are acting like Jon Gold. I think that's not only hypocritical but that it's simply wrong.

I never said that!

My point is that both have been proven and nobody here or anywhere has put forth a logical argument showing otherwise and most here have agreed.

Whether you think there is MORE proof for CD and prefer to lead with that when addressing "newbies" I really don't care.

But that does not change that fact that if you accept the north side evidence that you MUST scientifically accept it as proof of a flyover.

Of course you can refuse to accept it and write it off as disinfo with no basis whatsoever. Certainly that is everyone's prerogative no matter how illogical it is. But if you DO accept it, it is proof of a flyover.

That's what this thread is about.

Once something has been proven you can't say that something else that has also been proven is somehow more true.

Truth is truth and proof is proof.

Just like a woman can't be sort of pregnant.

So it boils down to this.....you can accept the info we present proves a flyover, or you can write it all off as a coordinated disinfo effort.

There is no other choice.

Which do you feel is more logical gretavo?

Witness testimony is not the same as physical evidence. Something inferred based on indisputable physical evidence (free-fall collapse implying use of explosives) is not the same as something inferred from witness testimony (north of citgo flight path implying flyover) because those witnesses COULD be lying whereas it is much less likely that the free fall of WTC7 could somehow be a deception.

Again healthy skepticism is good but when there is no valid REASON or BASIS for skepticism and when it's used to illogically dismiss such a large body of verifiable information that proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon it becomes ridiculous and extremely counter-productive.

Is it technically POSSIBLE that all the witnesses are deep cover operatives who were part of a disinfo conspiracy to put out false information proving the plane did not hit the Pentagon? I suppose so but by that same token it's also POSSIBLE that all of the footage of the building 7 collapse we've seen has been faked.

Both notions are absurd and are not based on any evidence whatsoever or even a single logical, coherent, or valid train of thought.

At some point it's important to rally behind the info that checks out.

I showed up at your site to remind you that this info checks out (while urging you to view it in full) and in good faith answer any questions or suspicions you have about it or us directly.

Ultimately you are faced with a simple choice....do you embrace the fact that there WAS indeed a plane that did not hit or do you write off CIT as disinfo?

gretavo's picture

yes, this is my point

"So it boils down to this.....you can accept the info we present proves a flyover, or you can write it all off as a coordinated disinfo effort.

There is no other choice.

Which do you feel is more logical gretavo?"

In fact I believe both to be possible, and have no way to know *for sure* which is correct. But let's amend the first part to say that the info you present proves a flyover *and is honest*. Because I don't contest the fact that if there was such a flight path it would seem to necessitate a flyover. Asking me which I think is more logical, well, I would have to say that given the scope of the 9/11 cover-up and the fake truth movement of which we know there can be no doubt, adding in one more angle of deception, perhaps in the form of "deliberately defending a cause with faulty arguments" doesn't seem too outlandish.

The problem here is that for some reason you want us all to swear allegiance to the flyover explanation, and to your and the witnesses' credibility and actively promote it. Well, I will certainly include your evidence in any effort I make to discuss alternative scenarios to the OCT at the Pentagon, but always with the caveat that it *might* be a set up of some kind to be later discredited when a new batch of witnesses is "discovered".

What I think is great is that you got some people on the record, on camera, giving their account, which differs from the official explanation. One day they should all be called to testify in court under oath, but for that day to come we need many more people to become aware that the entire official story about 9/11 is extremely dubious.

Craig Ranke's picture

"Might be a set up"!

Brilliant way to campaign!

Unbelievable.

I can't imagine handing someone a DVD and saying such a thing. I would NEVER give ANYONE information I suspect to be disinfo.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is new to all this and handed a dvd with that "caveat". Outrageous.

This really reveals a lot.

Such an approach can only be the result of activism without research as you made it perfectly clear yesterday that you have not viewed the evidence we present in full before coming to these conclusions.

Activism without research is abominable in my opinion.

Researchers check out info and come to conclusions. If you are unable to make a determination and confidently stand by the information you are campaigning with, you need to go back to researching.

Frankly I am blown away at this response.

gretavo's picture

think what you want

Your insinuation that I conduct activism without research is good for a laugh, thanks. For the record, though, I never said I actually *do* promote your work to others, just that if I did I would, as I do with anything else, suggest that the person consider the information and come to their own conclusions and also warn them that there have been numerous efforts to spread disinformation purporting to be the truth about 9/11 and that I cannot personally vouch for anything except the fact that we were definitely lied to about this, that or the other thing.

In contrast, your approach as evidenced here is to proclaim what you have discovered the truth to be and badger anyone who does not say they agree with you 100% without question. This is the only conclusion I can come to, having said already that I agree with your conclusions on the condition that your witnesses (and/or you) are being honest. Since you can't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, and since your arguments rest primarily on the testimony of these wtnesses, I can understand why it might frustrate you that you will therefore not be getting a ringing endorsement from me (or whoever else sees this the way I do) any time soon. At least not the kind of endorsement you seem to be seeking which is that you and the witnesses you interviewed could not possibly be part of the kind of disinformation campaign that has been proven to be all too common in the movement thus far. You want people to express faith in you? Become a televangelist. On the other hand, if you want people to consider the evidence you have produced, you'd be well advised to change your approach and tone.

That said, I am familiar enough with the tactics employed by the cover-up to not fall for the old "the guys promoting this are obnoxious so it must not be true" fallacy. The flyover explanation is not your personal property and believe it or not was something that people were discussing as a possible explanation for the eyewitness accounts before anyone ever heard of you. Whether it was a flyover based on a north of Citgo approach is not all that relevant--the fact that the scene was staged, with lamp posts felled to make it appear as if a plane crashed into the Pentagon when none did is evident from the absence of a plane or any credible remnants of one on the scene. Your work, I'm sorry to say, is therefore superfluous at best. I KNOW a 757 couldn't have crashed into the Pentagon regardless of how or where the "decoy" plane may have flown over it. Proof of deception is proof of a crime, yes, and a north side approach would seem to add to the already glaring evidence that AA77 was not flown into the Pentagon as we've been told. But there is a possibility, however small, that you and/or the witnesses are lying. There is no possibility on the other hand, that our eyes are lying to us when we look at the crash scene and see how absurd the suggestion that AA77 flew into it is. There is also no possibility of being deceived into thinking that no credible evidence for AA77 having been a real flight has been produced--that is a self-evident fact.

This is what makes your self-importance and zealotry so interesting, and, dare I say, slightly suspicious. I can't shake the feeling, and I know I'm not the only one, that anyone behaving as strangely as you do is hiding something. What it is I can't say for sure at the moment, but believe me that it has no bearing on how I perceive the facts, possible facts, and impossibilities surrounding the Pentagon on 9/11. Your work and the witness statements you collected are now part of the case, of course, and will be considered. What I want no part in however is having them be the subject of needless arguments and wasting of time and energy that is better spent on other subjects.

Craig Ranke's picture

double post

double post

Tahooey's picture

Thank you Craig

Thanks very much for your replies.

"But the damage to the trailer is not consistent with such a scenario particularly if you consider the fence in front of it that looks like it has this cookie cutter perfect round hole in it, in my opinion indicating it was pre-fabricated."

Well if the fence was set up to look like that how would that be inconsistent with a missile being fired from the trailer?  I think the video frames that were released and the directional damage both point to the possibility and I haven't seen anything yet (including the photos and discussion at your forum link) that rules it out. Although at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter; we know well enough what didn't happen (plane impacting pentagon).

I think your point against my theory 2 (allow him to do several media interviews and roam free to talk to whomever he wants while simply hoping he'll never leak) is a good one, but not 100% proof (after all, he did talk to the CIT and "leak" more or less, no?) How could such a "leaky" individual have been intentionally trusted with this kind of role?

FWIW I agree with you that (thanks to the evidence you've assembled) beyond any reasonable doubt, a flyover did happen.

Tahooey's picture

it is pretty incredible

that he was allowed to keep the cab under any circumstances; shouldn't it be in a national archive museum or something?

<eom>

juandelacruz's picture

or shipped to China to be

or shipped to China to be melted and recycled...but if as Craig suspects he is an agent, then he gets a pass to keep the cab and pimp his disinfo story

Tahooey's picture

Mr. England in on it?

I just think if he was an agent, he wouldn't invite people into his house to destroy his own and the government's credibility.  he would say politely, "sorry I am a busy man" and close the door.  Instead he shows off the actual vehicle preserved under a tarp years later?  What's up with that?  Why would an agent show off the actual vehicle which has damage inconsistent with the OCT?  It just doesn't make any sense!  It's the Chewbacca defense.

juandelacruz's picture

An in house "agent" is too

An in house "agent" is too valuable and wise to expose himself compared to this guy. But I think of him as an expendable "tool" that was paid off to jab on the air. The same way informants and other bottom of the barrel characters are sometimes used by police (and FBI) to do their investigating and field work. They are a means of interfacing to the real world without wasting your valuable resources.

Think of Jon Gold, I think he is an agent of sorts, a dim bulb who was hired to push LIHOP and waste everyone's time in the 9-11 movement. Not so bright but an effective agent nevertheless (IMHO). Being such they do make mistakes, and I think they are not too closely supervised so their handlers won't get exposed.

Tahooey's picture

My opinion on Gold

is that he has some sort of connection to larry silverstein.  I suspect he is either a relative or an employee (or both).  This is what I've assumed from "black box button pushing" at 911B back in the day.  What seems to have gotten him most upset are direct accusations at Silverstein.

juandelacruz's picture

Do you have a link to that

Do you have a link to that thread or an archive. I would like to see the instances where Jon Gold protects Zionists all collected and displayed in one place after he tried to deny his being a Zionist in his communications with KB.

Craig Ranke's picture

Lloyde was meant to talk to media as much as possible

What's 100% clear is that this scene was staged and that Lloyde was a major part of the propaganda to sell the impact of a 757 into that building.

They didn't stage the scene so they could hide it (and him) away. They have heavily used the images of this scene and they clearly WANTED Lloyde to talk to as much media as possible and he most certainly has.

He was interviewed by America's Most Wanted, People magazine, NBC news, and no doubt others.

He would hide away if he was coerced or somehow an unwilling dupe, not if he was a deep cover asset meant to evoke sympathy as a psychological manipulation tool to sell the official story.

But yes the evidence proves Lloyde England is "in on it".

He even admitted to me (when he didn't know he was being recorded) that it was a "planned" event and that he is "in it". But he tried to distance himself from the perps by saying how he is a "small man" and that this is a "big thing" by the people with all the money and that "this is for them".

We think he is more likely a low level asset rather than full on "operative" on the regular pay roll but obviously we'll never know for sure his exact level of involvement. Regardless, the evidence strongly implicates him as the first known accomplice to the physical execution of this crime.

Annoymouse's picture

Fearmongers

Why don't you believe Lloyde could have been coerced into playing a role for these "big men?" We are all small "men" in their game as you know.

Craig Ranke's picture

He is the owner of the cab

I don't think they are allowed to confiscate personal belongings for museums.

Tahooey's picture

museum was a joke

I mean, the cab was crime scene evidence.  I would have expected it to be impounded and never see the light of day again, unless first melted down into a part on a new battleship.

Craig Ranke's picture

Oh right...

Yeah I agree, you'd think that it would be subject to forensic analysis before given back considering the nature of the crime.

And of course as shown in "Eye of the Storm" him and his FBI employee new wife expressed "suspicion" about this when asked and she even claimed she knew WHY it wasn't taken in as evidence but refused to tell!

Tahooey's picture

so your working theory

is that they are playing the role of honest conspiracy theorists who somehow (innocently) got caught up in the biggest conspiracy ever?

To me it seems to make pretty good sense given all the confounding details.

Craig Ranke's picture

sort of...

Not to the mainstream media but yes, clearly that was how they wanted him to handle independent reporters/skeptics like us.

I'm not sure about his FBI employee wife though.

For all we know even she could be compartmentalized as to his exact level of involvement.

Tahooey's picture

the FBI employed wife

Any ideas what her role is at the FBI?  employee is a pretty broad category...

Craig Ranke's picture

She wouldn't say

and when I asked Lloyde he simply said "we don't talk about it".

juandelacruz's picture

Do you have a link to that

(Deleted, was replying to another post)

gretavo's picture

talking about pre-fabricated scenes...

Anyone else notice the book on Lloyde's passenger seat? It's Children of the Matrix, by... wait for it... David Icke!

Children of the Matrix: How an Interdimensional Race has Controlled the World for Thousands of Years-and Still Does (Paperback) (Published April 1, 2001--i.e. April Fool's Day)

Is that a bottle of Eau de Poisson next to it? Cause boy does that cab smell fishy!

EDIT: So I did some googling and found this thread at Pilots for Truth from 2006 where Aldo mentions the Icke book:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=58

It talks about how Lloyde came into some money from a "Survivor's Fund", website available here: http://web.archive.org/web/20040413095225/www.survivorsfundproject.org/S...

You can see here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.survivorsfundproject.org that the survivor's project website was begun in Feb 2004 and removed in December 2006, just 4 months after the date of the thread at P4T, where apparently the individual who posted the original thread about Lloyd and this compensation fund was eventually banned...

I wonder if Aldo or Craig could explain what they think the significance is of Lloyd's interest in kooky Icke-brand conspiracy theory before 9/11 is? Also on his relationship with this private Survivors Fund in Northern Virginia...

gretavo's picture

the P4T post...

This guy Driver was user number 29 at P4T forum, and more or less immediately upon joining posted the Lloyde story...

driver
View Member Profile Aug 30 2006, 08:47 PM Post #1

Private Pilot

Group: Banned
Posts: 127
Joined: 29-August 06
Member No.: 29

http://www.survivorsfundproject.org/SFPFin...ients/lloyd.asp

Lloyd, Survivors' Fund Project Survivor Story

Lloyd still keeps a torn dollar bill signed by a stranger and dated September 11, 2001. It marks a day he has struggled to survive for two years. But Lloyd’s story is different from most other Survivors’ Fund clients. His life and livelihood was changed by the path of Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon.

Lloyd, 69, began the morning of September 11, 2001 like most days, driving his taxi cab. A passenger in Rosslyn told him what had happened at the World Trade Center so he turned on his radio and headed home. As he approached the Navy Annex, he saw a plane flying dangerously low overhead. Simultaneously, the plane struck a light pole and the pole came crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s taxi cab, destroying the windshield in front of his eyes. Glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another car stopped and the driver helped move the heavy pole off Lloyd’s car. As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion. The light pole fell on Lloyd and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened.

Police started to arrive on the scene and forced Lloyde to move. They urged the bystanders to leave the area in case there was another explosion. Lloyde was forced to abandon his car in the middle of the street to begin the long walk home. As he made his way on foot up Route 395, he met a man who had been working at the Pentagon. Walking side by side they found a dollar bill lying in the road. They picked it up, tore it in half, each signed one half and traded with each other. Parting ways each took half of a torn dollar with a stranger’s name on it. Lloyde still keeps this tangible reminder of his experience on 9/11.

Lloyde says the hardest part of his journey since 9/11 has been trying to survive without money. He realized once he got home the morning of September 11th that he would not be able to work without his car—it is his livelihood. He was without a vehicle for two months until he purchased a used car with the help of American Red Cross funds. They were the only people to come to his aid in the beginning until his daughter came across the Survivors’ Fund. With the help of his case manager and financial support from the Fund, he has been able to afford his monthly expenses, something he struggled with after 9/11. “I’m not accustomed to people helping me,” he says. “I’m amazed that there are people there just to do that.”

Lloyde tends to keep his feelings to himself. He is quiet, respectful and humble when speaking of his experiences. When asked if it helps him to talk about September 11th, he says, “I don’t know. There are things I’d like to forget.” The remnants of September 11, the reminders are all over for him but he concludes, “surviving hasn’t been easy, but it can be done.”

Craig Ranke's picture

this is addressed in detail in our presentation

Hi gretavo,

The Lloyde situation is beyond "fishy". The evidence 100% proves this was an entirely staged scene.

Please view our presentation "Eye of the Storm" that documents our entire experience with Lloyde England as the David Icke book is fully addressed and I even ask Lloyde about it on camera when he doesn't know we are recording:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-eyeofthestorm.html

Yes the Icke book is an extreme oddity that we noticed as soon as his wife brought those pictures out for all of us in 2006 during our first interview with him.

What's clear is that when asked in 2008, although he claimed he read it, Lloyde was not able to cite a single thing from the book and talks about some "class" he was taking prior to 9/11 where they addressed this type of "hush hush stuff" like conspiracies regarding Princess Diana etc. Very odd although I think all of it is a front since he was unable to provide any details from the book indicating he HAS NOT read it as he claimed.

My personal opinion is that the book was put in the cab only to be discovered in these private images later by official story skeptics to help make him seem like he is "one of us" to the "conspiracy theorists".

Lloyde even doubts that the hole could have been caused by a plane in our interview from 2006 filmed by Dylan Avery and included in Loose Change Final Cut. He says "what happened to the engines?" etc. As we knew it would, this prompted Dylan to use that footage to present Lloyde as an honest official story doubter while editing out all the dubious details in his account regarding the removing the pole with with silent stranger and never damaging the hood etc.

Unfortunately Dylan took it even further by creating an animation that does not remotely represent the ridiculous story that Lloyde told us all.

Believe me we were ALL tripping pretty hard after seeing that Icke book on those images. It was definitely a major disappointment how Dylan handled this by covering up these dubious details and presenting Lloyde as if there are no questions about the veracity of his account at all.

Here is a short section of a live presentation I gave at the Granada Forum where I addressed the David Icke book:


Annoymouse's picture

Working with Dylan Avery?

lol!!!
and you want us to take you seriously?

juandelacruz's picture

Hi Tahooey, Missiles,

Hi Tahooey,

Missiles, specially bigger ones tend to make a significant launch signature to get them up to a high velocity. For this reason I don't think a missile would be launched from within the Pentagon grounds. If there was a missile used at the Pentagon, it is more likely to have been launched from far away. Once a missile has a high velocity, it can usually travel a significant distance without making a big visual signature by just gliding in.

My own pet theory is that a drone was used which had a large jet engine (larger than the small one used in a cruise missile and very different from solid rockets used in other guided missiles), and a bomb payload was launched from an airfield, guided in by remote, then crashed into the Pentagon via the official south of Citgo flight path. The drone would be timed to impact right after a large airliner type aircraft does a flyover of the Pentagon via the north of Citgo approach as witnessed by those interviewed. The drone can approach silently, gliding at high speed so that people will not notice it. People's attention would be at the big noisy and slower airliner which approaches, then flies over the Pentagon as the small drone hits it and creates a big explosion. The light poles are felled using explosives on their base to create the illusion that a large aircraft skimmed low into the building even though it was in fact a smaller aircraft flying above the light poles that did the damage to the building. This pet theory is, I think the only one compatible with the few security cam video frames released by the Pentagon (if one supposes they were genuine).

Why bother to use a drone and not just plant explosives and jet engine parts in the Pentagon? Well, the drone would take care of scattering "airliner" evidence into the Pentagon and still get people to work in their Pentagon offices unaware. Planting AlQuaeda passports on the street is easier than planting a large, heavy jet engine in the impact site.

An alternate is to do a flyover, use planted explosives to create both the external explosion and internal damage to the building, plant the engine parts or just fake the engine pictures and security cam video frames in the Pentagon.

Tahooey's picture

yes you know

I saw the video on CIT's site and I was wrong, the security cam shows the blazing object coming from beyond the gen trailer.  So it wasn't launched from there.... strike that theory!  anyway...

>An alternate is to do a flyover, ... plant the engine parts or just fake the engine pictures

but then why didn't they plant or fake the right engine parts?  why didn't they have the actual plane follow the OCT flight path?   It all doesn't make sense to me...  Maybe they knew they could be sloppy because they have more than enough influence in the media to cover for any sloppiness?

Adam Syed's picture

Bingo!

They didn't predict that Craig and Aldo would show up on the scene six years later!

Indeed, when they pulled this off, they underestimated the people power of the internet. They were not planning on a film like Loose Change becoming the no. 1 most downloaded film in internet history.

They were most definitely sloppy because they knew the MSM could cover for any sloppiness.

And they assumed that the American public was dumbed down enough not to care or investigate.

They faked the damage path, and simply used a decoy jet without giving a rat's ass which flight path it followed because all that concerned them was that people needed to see a plane flying toward the Pentagon followed by an explosion.

juandelacruz's picture

I agree

I agree, the same is probably true of wtc7, the perps did not imagine that every detail would be scrutinized by a truth movement.

Come to think of it, the 9-11 false flag op worked. The US is now in Afghanistan and Iraq, most people were fooled by the media and despite some less than perfect execution details, the perps have achieved their objectives.

Tahooey's picture

Juan I double agree

"the 9-11 false flag op worked. The US is now in Afghanistan and Iraq,
most people were fooled by the media and despite some less than perfect
execution details, the perps have achieved their objectives."

Annoymouse's picture

"Indeed, when they pulled

"Indeed, when they pulled this off, they underestimated the people power of the internet."

How does that square with claims repeatedly made that all sorts of "fake opposition" sites were set up early on? Whether or not you agree with him on all points, there's no doubt that Jim Hoffman has been one of the most effective people at publicizing charges of WTC demolition. He launched his site, as far as I recall, back in 2003. At that time the idea of controlled demolition was certainly not anywhere near as widespread as it has become since then. If Hoffman was some kind of secret agent put in place ahead of time to steer people off-track, wouldn't that undermine the idea that the internet had been underestimated? You can't have it both ways. Either Hoffman being part of the devilish plot shows that the master-planners had foreseen the way that the internet would play a role, or else Hoffman is not part of any such plot even if he may be wrong on some things here and there.

gretavo's picture

i'll have it both ways, thank you very much.

They saw the obvious need to create a fake movement with a mostly online presence, but they overestimated its effectuveness in controlling the discourse. There. Both ways. They simply over-reached. They got cocky, now it's getting rocky, as Master Onion likes to say:


Annoymouse's picture

Do you know Hoffman

Do you know Hoffman personally?